Follow-Up of the Cues and Care Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long-term effects of the Cues intervention to reduce anxiety and enhance the interactive behavior of mothers of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants were investigated. A randomized trial comparing the Cues intervention to an attention control condition was conducted. A total of 122 mothers of newborns weighing < 1,500 g were randomized, and 96 participated in a follow-up assessment when the infants were 6 months corrected age. Maternal outcomes included anxiety, posttraumatic stress and depression, and mother–infant interaction. The Bayley Scales were used to assess infant development. Mother’s anxiety was not significantly lower in the Cues group (27.8 [ SD = 7.9]) compared with the control group (30.5 [ SD = 10.0]; p = 0.14). Mothers in the Cues group were not more sensitive in interactions with their infants. There were no differences between groups with respect to infant development. Thus, there was no evidence of any differential beneficial effects of the Cues program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".